***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 48 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate
563698
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 13 Jul 18 at 10:34
|
>>Nobody hoodwinked us into EEC etc. In sixties we were falling behind rest of Europe in measures of trade, productivity etc. No obvious means as to how our Victorian and subsequent greatness could be restored. Joining the Common Market was seen by majority of both major parties as way forward. Only De Gaulle's veto stopped us joining sooner.
>>How on earth, anchored off Europe, were we to achieve greatness alone. Frankly it was the EU or risking being a vassal of the US.
>>I know which I prefer.
Interesting that De Gaulle originally "opposed efforts by fellow EEC member countries to move toward some form of political integration that, in de Gaulle's thinking, would impinge on the sovereignty of France, both internally and externally"
"To counter those "supranational tendencies" that he disparaged, he put forward in 1961 the so-called Fouchet Plan that maintained all decision-making powers in the hands of governments, reducing the projected European parliamentary assembly to a mere consultative assembly"
"British Prime Minister Churchill once said to him that if he had the choice between France and the United States, he would always choose the United States"
I'm with ^this geezer. I've thought that way for years actually, going orf the idea after the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan , but I'm warming to the idea once again now, especially as I despise and loathe the European Union so much. Looking back at the previous century, who have been our real friends in the world?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#European_Economic_Community_(EEC)
|
Once you start having trade agreements and customs union plus free movement of people there is bound to be a more political union.
What is so wrong about that? Would you like the American private health system to be introduced in the U.K.Because that is the way we are heading.What do you despise so much about Europe you are part of Europe whether you like it or not.
Britain had a strong voice in Europe and people did listen.But you can't keep throwing your toys out the pram and think you can get away with it.You can tell this government doesn't want to leave after this week talks in Brussel.
Regarding real friends I don't know what you mean.The Germans have thrown everything at rebuilding their industrial base.In the meantime we let the city cause havoc with our economy the friendly banker which we all still pay a price for.I like this country always have done I wouldn't live here otherwise.But I am still a European not part of a United States of America.
|
>>Europe you are part of Europe whether you like it or not.<<
The majority don't like it and it's not for much longer.
>>But you can't keep throwing your toys out the pram and think you can get away with it.You can tell
>> this government doesn't want to leave after this week talks in Brussel.
>>
Tough luck, we voted to leave, We voted this government in to act upon our behalf, now they need to get on with it and do a bit better job than they have done for our fishermen.
From someone who has spent their working life on the water, I would have thought you would have understood that problem.
Pat
|
Another thought on this...
>>You can tell
>> this government doesn't want to leave after this week talks in Brussel.<<
This government asked us, the general public,what we wanted in the form of a referendum.
We got off our respective bums and voted in unprecedented numbers with a bigger turn out than ever before.
You can forget what 'they' want from the moment they asked 'us' to vote for what we wanted.
Blame Dodgy Dave if you want but if this government don't deliver what was voted for, don't forget that there is a huge amount of floundering UKIP voters wondering where to put their next vote.
From what I'm hearing from them it will be going to Corbyn.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 20 Mar 18 at 15:57
|
>> You can forget what 'they' want from the moment they asked 'us' to vote for
>> what we wanted.
'They' are representatives not delegates. If they have a genuine evidenced belief (abandonment being politically impossible) that anything other than the softest exit, pretty much in name only, will be an economic disaster then should they follow their consciences?
|
No, they are wrong.
That's why they asked for direction from their electorate.
There is no such thing as a Tory politician with a 'genuine' evidenced belief. It's back peddling, you know that as well as I do.
Pat
|
>> No, they are wrong.
>>
>> That's why they asked for direction from their electorate.
They (Cameron) didn't ask for a direction from the electorate because it was a matter being debated in the pubs and clubs throughout the land. They did it to sort out the civil war in their own party. Exactly the same trick Harold Wilson pulled in 1974/5. Only he was a much more wily politician than Dave and prepared his ground.
>> There is no such thing as a Tory politician with a 'genuine' evidenced belief. It's
>> back peddling, you know that as well as I do.
Jonathon Djanogly, Tom Tugendhat, Sarah Wolaston and Nicky Morgan for starters. And of course there's the hard core threesome of Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke.
|
|
He won't be going for a hard exit. He'll stay in the Customs Union and probably the single market. All meaningless by now (he kept very quiet during the campaign and for a long time afterwards) We should get the best deal and get out. Clearly no-one from either end of the exit argument remembered about Ireland and its troubles though, apart from the northern Irish who voted to stay.
|
|
Why are they wrong Pat and about what ?
|
>> Why are they wrong Pat and about what ?
>> If they have a genuine evidenced belief (abandonment being politically impossible) that anything other than the softest exit, pretty much in name only, will be an economic disaster then should they follow their consciences?
I was answering that quote from Bromp and none of us believes in this 'genuine' evidenced belief.
Having backed themselves into a corner they really didn't expect, or want to be in by allowing us to have a referendum, they will now try to find any way out of it they can.
It will end in disaster though because as I say, we'll end up with JC in power, and I certainly don't want that but there are a great many who think he's a better alternative to May.
They feel that he would give them something nearer what they were led to believe they were voting for than the shambles we are getting at the moment.
I tend to agree with that, but it's all the other bits that go with him I don't like.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 20 Mar 18 at 16:46
|
>> I was answering that quote from Bromp and none of us believes in this 'genuine'
>> evidenced belief.
I've suggested some names who make a damn good tale of evidenced belief - where are they wrong?
>> Having backed themselves into a corner they really didn't expect, or want to be in
>> by allowing us to have a referendum, they will now try to find any way
>> out of it they can.
You've still not dealt with who 'they' really are. As I said above Cameron didn't 'allow us to have a referendum'; it wasn't a real issue. He called it to solve a political problem for the Conservative Party - he gambled our nation's future for a cause with next to no traction outside an organisation of less than 100,000 members.
>> It will end in disaster though because as I say, we'll end up with JC
>> in power, and I certainly don't want that but there are a great many who
>> think he's a better alternative to May.
As a Labourite in the mould of Crosland, Healey and Hattersley I've limited time for the hard left. Jezza is though actually growing into the role of leader (one he never wanted or expected). He looks more and more capable of articulating ordinary people's concerns and he's brilliant at campaigning and public speaking.
The idea of his being in Number 10, once jokingly implausible, is now seriously possible.
And it's all David Cameron's fault :-P
|
. As I said above Cameron didn't
>> 'allow us to have a referendum'; it wasn't a real issue. He called it to
>> solve a political problem for the Conservative Party - he gambled our nation's future for
>> a cause with next to no traction outside an organisation of less than 100,000 members.
I know your a big labour fan but heart of hearts you can't really think that's true?
|
|
Is that not irrelevant? The year is 2018 and we voted to leave in june 2016.
|
>> I know your a big labour fan but heart of hearts you can't really think
>> that's true?
Perhaps the 'no traction' bit is an exaggeration but the basic assertion that it was addressing an issue in the Tory party rather than outside it will, I think, be the way history sees it.
|
> Perhaps the 'no traction' bit is an exaggeration but the basic assertion that it was
>> addressing an issue in the Tory party rather than outside it will, I think, be
>> the way history sees it.
I suppose we all see the same thing in a different light. I can't help but see it as a wider base than that. Amplified in the con party for sure but still a wider base and had been for some time.
|
The issue was certainly causing the Tory party problems but I do think the EU in/out issue was and is a divisive issue across the population and across the political spectrum, you only need to look on here to see the splits which are certainly not along parity political lines.
It was always and will be always a part of British political and cultural life that we will never be and indeed would never have been as integrated a part of Europe as most of the mainland countries. I think that will be how history views it in decades to come.
|
>> Clearly no-one from either end of the exit argument remembered about Ireland and its troubles
>> though, apart from the northern Irish who voted to stay.
>>
or Gibraltar for that matter
|
>> He won't be going for a hard exit. He'll stay in the Customs Union and
>> probably the single market.
Hard to know what he thinks about brexit or the EU, I'm not sure he even knows what to think about either issue.
|
I agree with that Sooty.
Pat
|
>> Hard to know what he thinks about brexit or the EU, I'm not sure he
>> even knows what to think about either issue.
His personal belief is probably out; EU being too much in bed with liberal economics and likely to try and stamp on socialist policies. As a party leader he has to be more pragmatic - plenty of his own party are pro EU.
|
His personal belief is probably out; EU being too much in bed with liberal economics
>> and likely to try and stamp on socialist policies. As a party leader he has
>> to be more pragmatic - plenty of his own party are pro EU.
>>
I think both parties come across as having a wide range of views but in his case it comes across, not as pragmatism, but as indecision.
|
>> Blame Dodgy Dave
Why is it always my fault?
;)
|
>>Once you start having trade agreements and customs union plus free movement of people there is bound to be a more political union. What is so wrong about that?
Sovereignty, and the ability to make our own laws.
>>What do you despise so much about Europe
I love Europe, but hate the EU.
>>You can tell this government doesn't want to leave after this week talks in Brussel.
Long way to go yet guvnor, and parliament will vote on the final bill. My guess is they will vote "NON".
>>Regarding real friends I don't know what you mean.
WW1 and WW2.
>>The Germans have thrown everything at rebuilding their industrial base
I admire todays Deutschland, this country could have been just as successful. The reasons we aren't are manifold, but blame is for God, and small children.
>>we let the city cause havoc with our economy the friendly banker which we all still pay a price for
The city is, by hook or by crook, where this country makes much of its money. Our manufacturing base is virtually nil, so without the city we'd all be rummaging around rubbish tips to survive ;)
|
>> My guess is they will vote "NON".
And if they do at that late stage - then what?
>> WW1 and WW2.
So is it just Germany you dislike, e.g. wrt WW2 because of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi)? And then Germany again for WW1 and the assassination of the Archduke? There is a link between the agreements to WW1 and how Hitler emerged for WW2.
>> I admire todays Deutschland
Are you not contradicting your point about WW1 and WW2?
>> The city is, by hook or by crook, where this country makes much of its money.
Yes and even those huge bonuses are taxed. So that will all move out of London and we lose the tax on that - you want us to lose our Passporting rites trading wise don't you. Marvellous. You know we rely on the City for income tax and we've just told them all to move somewhere else to enable them to trade. Smart move? My guess is Dublin or maybe Frankfurt.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 20 Mar 18 at 20:33
|
|
When I was considering university options, we had some Cambridge students do a talk at school. They found it amusing as many must that the natural science course they were on was known as NatSci. How funny.
|
|
I've read that second sentence a couple of times now, I've still no idea what it means.
|
|
I don't really dislike any country Rob, and certainly not Germany, a country I have travelled in from east to west, including the Isle of Rugen and Peenemunde, Dresden, Lubeck, Hanover, Hamburg, Wartburg etc. etc. In fact I like the Germans as much as I like the Spanish peops, whom I'm rather fond of ... especially the women ;)
|
But the two World Wars seems to be part of why you dislike the EU. Whereas as a project what started as the common market was to avoid future conflict.
As to my NatSci comment... young Cambridge undergraduates thought it amusing to refer to themselves NatScis (meaning to sound like Nazis) if they studied natural sciences. Sad.
|
Leave it out guvnor, the two world wars have absolutely nothing to do with why I hate the EU.
The 'project' was started, essentially, to stop the Germany and France bashing each other up.
|
>> Leave it out guvnor, the two world wars have absolutely nothing to do with why
>> I hate the EU.
>>
>> The 'project' was started, essentially, to stop the Germany and France bashing each other up.
What we have here, is a prime example of why people shouldn't be trusted with anything important, like the vote for example.
|
>> >>
>> >> The 'project' was started, essentially, to stop the Germany and France bashing each other
>> up.
>>
>> What we have here, is a prime example of why people shouldn't be trusted with
>> anything important, like the vote for example.
>>
I thought it was one of the supposed big sucesses of the EU that it "kept the peace in Europe for the last 70 years".
Funny how the evidence supporting a proposition can be switched depending on the answer you want.
|
>>Whereas as a project what started as the common market was to avoid future conflict.
Wasn't it more to ensure that France and Germany - but especially Germany - controlled Europe thenceforward?
|
>>Wasn't it more to ensure that France and Germany - but especially Germany - controlled Europe thenceforward?
"One of the conditions of Marshall Aid was that the nations' leaders must co-ordinate economic efforts and pool the supply of raw materials. By far the most critical commodities in driving growth were coal and steel.
France assumed it would receive large amounts of high-quality German coal from the Ruhr as reparations for the war, but the US refused to allow this, fearing a repetition of the bitterness after the Treaty of Versailles which partly caused World War II"
"Under the inspiration of the French statesmen Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, together with the German leader Konrad Adenauer, the rift between the two nations had begun to heal and along with Italy and the Benelux countries, they formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which following the Treaty of Rome of 1957 became the European Economic Community, also known as the Common Market"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#European_Economic_Community_(EEC)
|
Because Germany has the strongest economy in Europe it doesn't mean we have to fear them.
Is it maybe to do with jealousy on the three main powers in Europe.Germany, Great Britain and France .They all want to be in charge and none of them are.
If anybody is willing to listen to Putin the Russian boss he states that Europe is under American rule anyway.Is he that far wrong?
Interesting subject by the way.
|
I foresee a clash between the EU and the USA ... it's started already with tariffs on steel and aluminium.
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-merkel/merkel-slams-trumps-import-tariffs-as-unlawful-idUSKBN1GX1QQ
|
>> I foresee a clash between the EU and the USA ... it's started already with
>> tariffs on steel and aluminium.
>>
>> www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-merkel/merkel-slams-trumps-import-tariffs-as-unlawful-idUSKBN1GX1QQ
Always been the way and why I'd rather be with our neighbours than in a one sided 'special relationship'.
|
>> Always been the way and why I'd rather be with our neighbours than in a
>> one sided 'special relationship'.
Especially when said relationship is with a government run by an unstable, narcissistic liar.
|
|
Then there's Trump as well.
|
>> I foresee a clash between the EU and the USA ... it's started already with
>> tariffs on steel and aluminium.
>>
>> www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-merkel/merkel-slams-trumps-import-tariffs-as-unlawful-idUSKBN1GX1QQ
Never mind, you can look forward to you chlorine washed chicken, your hormone laden beef, and unfettered GM crops, all care of your REAL friends, the yanks.
|
"Never mind, you can look forward to you chlorine washed chicken, your hormone laden beef, and unfettered GM crops, all care of your REAL friends, the yanks."
Have you been reading the Daily Mail again? Which GM crops do you have in mind?
|
Have a look through the Monsanto product catalogue and take your pick.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 09:23
|
"Have a look through the Monsanto product catalogue and take your pick. "
So you don't have anything in particular in mind? Are GM crops poisonous if consumed?
|
>> "Have a look through the Monsanto product catalogue and take your pick. "
>>
>> So you don't have anything in particular in mind? Are GM crops poisonous if consumed?
I dont know what the long term effects are, do you?
|
>>Are GM crops poisonous if consumed?
The long term effects of consumption are unknown but probably low risk. The other issue is the effect on wildlife, other plants (cross pollination) and the power their use places in companies like Monsanto.
|
|
More to the point, they make chemical resistant seed stocks so farmers can use pesticides that are poisonous. To us and the environment.
|
>> More to the point, they make chemical resistant seed stocks so farmers can use pesticides
>> that are poisonous. To us and the environment.
Part and parcel.
|
"Part and parcel."
Sounds to me like a fear of progress - perhaps we should have a fellow walking in front of the seed-drill waving a red flag.
|
I can do daft comments too.
You should consider wearing a glove when burying the high explosives you use to make the seed holes.
See? Not difficult really.
But maybe, just maybe, there is some in-between position where the risks and benefits are properly assessed and appropriately managed (preferably by people who have expertise in these things, not just any old Joe Public) and which is neither fear of progress or reckless gung ho-ness.
Which applies to the whole shebang, not just genetically modified plants.
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 10:12
|
(preferably by people who have expertise in these things,
The bloke who does not have a financial interest in it will do me
Alas that's not the US gov, where millions of dollars are spent by Monsanto on lobbying
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 11:45
|
"You should consider wearing a glove when burying the high explosives you use to make the seed holes."
Not really - you'd use a seed drill, as i said. If you want to, however, you are at liberty to take a man-with-a-flag along too.......but most farmers don't bother, at least, not the ones I know.
|
You have to say this is quite funny. Apparently the new Blue passports will be made by the Franco-Dutch company Gemalto. The bid went out and it looks like they will win. De La Rue lost out.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/22/post-brexit-passports-set-to-be-made-by-franco-dutch-firm
At least it will be dark blue - I always thought my original passport was black to be honest. Must have been very dark blue.
The contract is £490M as well so not a bad win for Gemalto.
So after Brexit, if we're not in the single market, will there be a tariff on importing the UK passports? :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 00:11
|
>> Apparently the new Blue passports will be made by the Franco-Dutch company Gemalto.
At least it won't 'ave the werds "European Union" onnit.
8-)
|
We seem to be missing a lot of posts?
Pat
|
I'm finished with this forum - all the best to you and yours Pat.
Ray.
|
We're down at Doublebois on Sunday until Thursday and will be around your neck of the woods Ray, will look out for you.
Pat
|
>> We seem to be missing a lot of posts?
>>
>>
just had chance to look in today, been one of those threads has it? ;-)
|
Not really, it was a good discussion all day and I feel really sorry for those who have contributed and had their threads removed because of a remark a few minutes ago by one person.
Just makes you think it's not worth the bother if that's what's going to happen.
Pat
|
Didn't see the comment but the way the forum software works, hiding/deleting just one post can be time consuming. And error prone. It's all to do with the hierarchical nature of responses.
Perhaps a mod is trying to fix it. Or maybe it's too much work and it's not worth doing.
|
>> Or maybe it's too much work and it's not worth doing.
Correct.
We get moaned at for not removing or acting on personal comments made toward someone else, and we then get moaned at for removing them.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't!
It wasn't me who removed the posts btw. Just giving a brief explanation as to why they're gone.
Perhaps if certain individuals (no names mentioned) didn't keep on baiting one another, then maybe arguments wouldn't keep happening.
|
>>Perhaps if certain individuals (no names mentioned) didn't keep on baiting one another, then maybe arguments wouldn't keep happening.<<
One could argue that your remark could be seen as 'baiting'........:)
Time consuming it may well be to remove just one post, but it is the only fair way to do it.
Failing that, surely the answer is to deal directly with the offending poster to prevent it happening again?
Punishing others who have taken time and trouble to contribute good posts to a thread, and lose them through no fault of their own, is simply unfair to them.
Pat
|
>> One could argue that your remark could be seen as 'baiting'........:)
As is your reply ;)
>> Punishing others who have taken time and trouble to contribute good posts to a thread,
>> and lose them through no fault of their own, is simply unfair to them.
I've just gone over the removed content and nothing of worth was deleted, just another petty and pointless argument, like most of them seem to be.
If people conducted themselves properly, and were more civil toward one another, then perhaps it wouldn't be so unfair on those who's content does get removed. The moderators simply don't have the time to remove individual spats. Far easier to delete than edit. If certain people are too lazy to think before putting fingers to keyboard, then we can be equally as lazy and remove all the content.
|
I can see where you're coming from but nevertheless, it doesn't sit well with me.
I always resented the whole class being punished at school for one pupil's actions and I've got a feeling of Deja Vu.
Pat
|
Well that's how it is. Sorry if that's not to your satisfaction Pat, but there you are.
If you prefer, we can leave the arguments visible and let others see what an ass they're making of themselves. But I think most people know who the a-holes are anyway.
ps, it's not one pupil's actions, but several. It takes more than one person to have an argument. Disagree by all means, but all we ask is that people do it in a polite and civilised manner; without resorting to making personal insults, etc.
|
>>If you prefer,??
Not my choice to make surely.
As long as it conforms to the forum rules I'm happy. If it doesn't, I would expect you all to deal with it anyway.
Pat
|
|
Sorry, mistake to join in.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 09:23
|
You have to have a sense of humor,there must be a word for it.That the new British icon your own passport is going to be produced by a Dutch/French company.
Isn't that a bit rubbing salt into a wound by allowing this to happen?
That big wide world out there for trade is very small when you take it into context.I don't mean to be sarcastic but what is this government thinking off.
|
Hello Dog (Ray) are you leaving the forum why?
My personal opinion for what it is worth this Brexit vote was one of the biggest cock up any big European country could ever make.
I know we are going round in circles but it will hit us all hard and take years to be sorted.I think Diana voted Brexit and one of my sons so you see nobody in my family takes a blind bit of notice of me.That is democracy for you.
|
>> I don't mean to be sarcastic but what is this government thinking off.
Basically its been smacked by its own dogma over competitive tendering and no favours for British business.
That such a message has been endorsed by the Daily Mail since Mrs T's days only made the paper's headline more ironic. The Mail writing of Britain's Ruling Class was the cherry on the top!!!
|
It reminds from many years ago how Hull was one of the largest deep sea fishing ports in Europe.
This was before we joined the E.U.We had the cod war and Iceland put a 200- mile fishing limit around their coast.
The majority of fishermen were employed as casual labour and had a few employment rights.
The ship owners knew about the situation with Iceland and made a deal.The fishing industry collapsed and many people lost their jobs.
I hope we don't go full circle and go back to those old days.Maybe we already have with zero hrs contracts and uncertainty for many working people.
|
>> That such a message has been endorsed by the Daily Mail since Mrs T's days
>> only made the paper's headline more ironic. The Mail writing of Britain's Ruling Class was
>> the cherry on the top!!!
>>
The Mail will never let a good Pro Brexit anti EU opportunity pass, no matter how Hypocritical they need to be
>>
>>
|
Brexit Discussion Volume 47 - Dog
